Andrew Jones

Populist rhetoric and British values: A tightrope walk for teachers

Originally written for SecEd Magazine and published on 21 May 2025.

As a teacher and school leader, I have long believed in the importance of promoting values like mutual respect and tolerance – essential parts of the so-called fundamental British values (FBVs) embedded in our educational framework (DfE, 2014), which also inform Part 2 of the Teachers’ Standards for England (DfE, 2011).

But in recent years, I have found myself walking an increasingly thin line between championing these values and adhering to government guidance on political impartiality.

The mainstreaming of populist rhetoric, on both sides of the political spectrum, but particularly the so-called “hard right”, has made this balancing act harder than ever (for an interesting discussion on the rise of populism in Britain, see Davies & MacRae, 2023).

Moreover, while the principle of impartiality is not new – it is enshrined in legislation such as Sections 406 and 407 of the Education Act 1996 – the current political climate has raised serious questions about what impartiality actually means in practice.

When values collide

FBVs ask schools to promote democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and respect for others, including those of different faiths and backgrounds (DfE, 2014).

In my opinion, these values are hard to argue with. They’re the kind of values I try to model for my own mixed-race son, who is navigating the complexities of modern Britain.

However, the classroom presents scenarios where these seemingly straightforward values clash with the imperative for political impartiality.

The call for political neutrality often assumes a level playing field, where all sides of a debate are seen as equally valid. But what happens when one side fundamentally contradicts the very values we are expected to uphold?

Consider a situation where students repeat an inflammatory narrative they have encountered on social media – perhaps one originating from a democratically elected, yet overtly populist member of Parliament – that echoes broader populist discourse by seemingly portraying all immigrants as a homogenous, threatening group undermining British society.

If I challenge these views, am I upholding FBVs or displaying political bias? If I stay silent, am I implicitly endorsing intolerance?

This isn’t just a hypothetical. My colleagues and I have been accused of being “too woke” by parents for addressing racism in school, delivering assemblies on immigration (one parent objected to a balanced approach, claiming the topic was too political), and even labelled “politically biased” for pushing back on problematic online influencers like Andrew Tate during lessons on healthy relationships.

Moments like these force teachers to navigate a difficult line between neutrality and integrity. And it is not always clear which path we are expected to take (although, in the case of Andrew Tate, it does feel pretty obvious).

Essentially, the problem is this: how do we reconcile the need to uphold core values with the expectation of political neutrality, especially when those values are directly challenged by the viewpoints expressed by students?

Populism in the mainstream

As suggested above, the tension between upholding FBVs and maintaining political impartiality is further complicated by the rise of populist rhetoric in mainstream UK politics.

This rhetoric, often emotionally charged and framed in binary “us vs them” terms, has become increasingly common (Foster & Feldman, 2021). It is no longer confined to fringe movements or far-right groups.

In fact, some of the most controversial narratives are now originating from mainstream politicians, including the use of dehumanising language towards ethnic minorities and the deployment of terms like “cultural Marxism”, which echoes unsavoury conspiracy theories, to denigrate the media and cultural institutions, including education (Groves, 2024; Earle, 2023).

This mainstreaming of populist discourse has also led to growing concerns about perceived “ideological content” in schools, particularly around topics such as systemic racism, gender identity, and white privilege (see, for instance, Hoffman, 2023).

However, in my experience, many of these topics aren’t even on the curriculum and, to my knowledge, very rarely touched upon in school. Where a few of these sensitive topics are taught, perhaps in sociology or indirectly in some humanities subjects, most teachers approach these issues thoughtfully, aiming to foster critical thinking, empathy and meaningful engagement with society, rather than to indoctrinate.

Despite this careful approach, the DfE’s most recent guidance on political impartiality, intended to provide clarity, has instead generated uncertainty and hesitation among educators (DfE, 2022; see also SecEd, 2022).

The DfE’s caution against presenting “contested theories as fact” could arguably lead to over-cautiousness and even self-censorship, particularly when addressing spontaneous student questions influenced by online echo-chambers and polarised debates.

This poses a significant challenge for educators on the front-line. The question is not whether to address these difficult topics, but how to do so in a balanced, legally compliant, and values-driven manner.

Avoiding these conversations altogether not only fails to prepare students for life in a pluralistic democracy but also risks allowing misinformation and prejudice to go unchallenged, directly contradicting the very purpose of the FBVs we are meant to uphold.

Accepting our values

Philosopher Marilyn Friedman (1998) suggests that impartiality is less about complete neutrality and more about being aware of our own values and biases.

I find this resonates deeply with my practice. We can’t strip ourselves of all perspective, but we can reflect honestly on our principles and ensure they align with our professional conduct. Subsequently, while we should not present biased explanations of party political differences, we should not shy away from the values that we hold dear, which are probably not too dissimilar to those outlined in Part 2 of the Teachers’ Standards.

Jack Whitehead’s idea of “living educational theory” builds on this. Education, he argues, is inherently value-driven. When we encounter “living contradictions” – moments where the situations we find ourselves in don’t align with our values – that is when we need to consider responding in a way that protects our professional integrity (Whitehead, 1989).

So rather than chasing a mythical neutrality, perhaps we should aim for ethical consistency. That means creating spaces for respectful debate, but also drawing clear lines when speech undermines dignity, spreads hate or contradicts the legal and moral frameworks we are bound by.

Navigating political impartiality: Some suggestions

To help fellow teachers walk this tightrope, here are eight practical suggestions drawn from my own experiences, reflections and dialogue with colleagues.

1. Start with shared values: Frame discussions through the lens of the FBVs: democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty, and mutual respect and tolerance for different faiths and beliefs. These provide a legitimate foundation for challenging extremist or discriminatory viewpoints without aligning with a specific political party (regardless, I should add, of whether these values are uniquely British).

2. Know your legal and professional frameworks: Familiarise yourself with the DfE’s guidance on political impartiality (2022), the Equality Act 2010, the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006, and relevant safeguarding responsibilities under Prevent. This can help you justify your approach if challenged by parents, colleagues, or school leadership.

3. Equip students with language for disagreement: Teach students how to disagree without being disrespectful. Phrases like “I understand your view, but I see it differently because…” or “That’s one interpretation, could there be another?” help foster a culture of civil, critical debate. Encourage turn-taking, active listening and ask students not to make anything personal.

4. Focus on critical thinking: Encourage students to evaluate sources, question assumptions and understand the difference between opinion and evidence. This empowers them to make up their own minds and positions the teacher as a facilitator of thought rather than a moral authority.

5. Be transparent about boundaries: If a topic is particularly sensitive or likely to provoke strong reactions, it is okay to acknowledge that. Explain your responsibility to remain impartial, and model respectful dialogue by setting clear ground rules for discussion.

6. Document and reflect: Keep brief records of lessons that touch on politically sensitive material. Note what was discussed, how it was framed, and how students responded. This reflection not only supports your professional development but can offer protection if your approach is later questioned.

7. Don’t go it alone: If you are unsure how to approach a topic, talk to your head of department, safeguarding lead, or senior leadership team. If you are a school leader, consider a position for designated staff leads on controversial issues, who can support colleagues, provide guidance and help manage conversations with parents when necessary. Your religious education, citizenship, humanities, social science, English or PSHE leads might be a good bet if no-one is forthcoming.

8. Don’t be afraid to use current events as teachable moments: News stories, public debates or viral content can provide excellent entry points for discussion, but always bring the conversation back to critical engagement. Ask: Who is saying this? What’s their agenda? Is this supported by evidence? What are the consequences of this belief or policy?

Final thoughts

Political impartiality is not about silence, nor is it about agreeing with every view. It is about navigating the grey areas with honesty, humility and a commitment to values that transcend party lines – essentially respect, tolerance, dignity and truth.

As teachers, we must feel empowered to challenge harmful rhetoric without fear of reprisal, knowing that standing up for what is right isn’t the same as being politically partisan. In the face of populist noise and cultural division, teachers remain one of society’s most powerful democratic tools – not because we tell students what to think, but because we teach them how to think, critically and compassionately.

  • Andrew Jones is assistant headteacher at The Reach Free School in Hertfordshire and a regular contributor to SecEd. He has been a teacher for 22 years. Find his previous contributions to SecEd via www.sec-ed.co.uk/authors/andrew-jones 

Further reading

  • These ideas are expanded on and discussed at length in: Populist rhetoric and fundamental British values: Testing the limits of political impartiality in schools, written by Andrew Jones and published in FORUM 67,1, 2025: https://journals.lwbooks.co.uk/forum/vol-67-issue-1/ 

Further information & references

Photo credit: Tom à la Rue via Flickr (used under a Creative Commons Licence)

Leave a comment